A jaundiced look at the world we live in.
Last week, I had the good fortune to talk to a gifted teacher at Brebeuf High School who teaches a course in digital literacy: not “how to” use or program a computer, but how to navigate the Internet–how to recognize “click bait,” how to understand and use social media, how to beware of confirmation bias….in short, critical thinking for a digital world.
During our discussion, he showed me this video. It’s a short four minutes. WATCH IT.
CommentsFile under: Surely you jest.
The latest, widely-reported “initiative” from former Governor and current President of Purdue Mitch Daniels is an “innovative” method of financing college educations: have private individuals “invest” in a student in return for a portion of that student’s eventual earnings.
The impetus for this brilliant idea, according to Daniels, was concern over student loan debt. How this would improve the situation is unclear; owing your “patron” is unlikely to be any less burdensome–or less costly– than owing the bank. (If we were really interested in addressing student debt, we’d pass Elizabeth Warren’s bill and lower interest rates, or follow Germany’s example and provide free public education through college.)
And echoes of feudalism aside, this does raise a few questions. Who, for example, is going to “invest” in a philosophy degree? (Oh, I forgot: Mitch and his pal in Wisconsin, Scott Walker, don’t value a “search for truth” or a liberal arts education. They’re all about “job training” and generating more worker bees…)
Young people used to pay for their passage to the New World by promising to work for a certain number of years for an employer who would finance the voyage. This was called “indentured servitude.” Indentures couldn’t marry without the permission of the employer, and their obligation to labor for their “owner” was enforced by the courts. Owners could buy and sell indentured servants’ contracts and the right to their labor.
This raises some fascinating possibilities: while it’s unlikely the proposed contracts to finance an education would include a right to approve marriages, could the “investor” require the student to choose a job that paid more rather than a lower-paid one that the student preferred?
Could the investor “sell” the contract at a profit if the student did well and the negotiated percentage of her income represented a better-than-anticipated return on investment?
Could the investor require his “investment” to abstain from smoking, drinking and other risky behaviors that might threaten the duration of the student’s work life?
Actually, this bizarre proposal suggests that America is overdue for a discussion of what constitutes an investment–and especially about the difference between public and private investments.
Believe it or not, Mitch, that philosophy major is a good public investment, even if it doesn’t make much sense to the rich guy looking for a kid who’ll be his annuity.
CommentsThe mis-named “Religious Freedom” bill is gliding through the Indiana General Assembly, where–despite polls showing the movement’s loss of members and power– lawmakers still tremble at the thought of crossing (no pun intended) the Religious Right.
The bill is a transparent effort to dignify discrimination by businesses offended–offended, I tell you–by the very idea of taking money for goods and services from same-sex couples. Of course, by its terms, it will allow establishments to turn away anyone they dislike based upon “sincere religious convictions,” so the potential for mischief is great, but everyone knows that the intended target of the measure are those uppity homosexuals.
Of course, as Erika Smith has pointed out, merchants can already discriminate against gays with impunity, since Indiana’s civil rights law doesn’t protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation–so an additional “We’ll show you!” bill will basically serve to announce to the rest of the country that Indiana is a state where bigots hold sway.
We may not be able to muster sufficient rational candidates and voters to fill our legislative chambers with grown-ups and nice people, but that doesn’t mean reasonable Hoosiers don’t have recourse. I am delighted to learn of “Open for Service.”
Welcome to Open For Service! We are a grassroots campaign built to honor businesses that will not turn a customer away for any differences. To register your business, it is $10.00 for a sticker and web badge with the proceeds going to SCORE a national non-profit that mentors people who would like to start a business of their own. Join us, hang out and promote an “open minded economy!”
The stickers say “This Business Serves Everyone.”
One of the great virtues of capitalism is that consumers can choose where to spend their dollars. I patronize Costco rather than Walmart because I want to support businesses that treat their employees well and avoid those who don’t. I have the right to never set foot in Hobby Lobby, or buy sandwiches from Chik-fil-A–in short, a market economy offers me the right to make choices based upon any criteria important to me.
So if, as I fear, this piece of nastiness passes into law, I plan to patronize stores with stickers–and to ask hard questions before spending my dollars at stores without them.
CommentsWhat’s the point of having one’s very own blog if you can’t use it for marketing, right? So I’ve been asked to share the media release put out by IUPUI to hype my upcoming presentation of what the University calls “The Last Lecture.”
I really struggled with this particular speech (it’s so much easier to “vent” to a blog each morning…), so I hope at least some members of this blog community will be able to attend.
I should probably clarify that, despite the title, it won’t really be my last lecture, much as some folks might wish it were so….
Here’s IUPUI’s media release.
**********************************
The old African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child,” goes to the heart of political philosophy: what should that village look like?
What is the common good? What is the nature of mutual social obligation? What sort of social and political arrangements are most likely to promote and enable — in Aristotle’s term — human flourishing? Perhaps most importantly, do we live in an era when such questions have largely been abandoned?
Sheila Suess Kennedy of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs will explore these and other questions in “Defending Reason in an Unreasonable Time” during IUPUI’s 2015 Last Lecture at 2 p.m. March 27 in the Campus Center Theater.
Kennedy has been at IUPUI since 1998, rising to her role as a professor of law and public policy in SPEA and as director of the Center for Civic Literacy.
The Last Lecture offers the university community the opportunity to hear reflections on life’s lessons and meaning from a retired or current IUPUI colleague of exceptional merit.
Reservations are required. RSVP online by March 23, or call Angie Vinci-Booher at 317-274-4500.
Kennedy says she has lived through the women’s movement, the civil rights movement, the ’60s, the sexual revolution, the gay rights movement, recent decades of religious zealotry that might be characterized as “America’s most recent Great Awakening,” and a dizzying explosion of new transportation and communication technologies. All those experiences have given her perspectives she will share on issues such as social justice, education and the nature of the common good.
Kennedy has a breadth of personal and professional experience that can rival anyone; she has been a lawyer (both in law firms and for the city of Indianapolis), a businesswoman, an author of nine books, a columnist for the Indianapolis Business Journal, a blogger on her own website and others, executive director of the Indiana affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union and a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.
The Last Lecture is sponsored by the Senior Academy, the Office of Academic Affairs and the Indiana University Foundation. For additional information, contact the Office of Academic Affairs at 317-274-4500.
CommentsFar be it from me to quibble when the Indianapolis Star actually engages in journalism. And it did so last Sunday, twice on the front page (!)–with a report on charter schools (they get more money per pupil than public schools, and on average perform more poorly. I know, it’s a shock…) and a lengthy and informative piece on the pros and cons of the Justice Center proposal.
Kudos on actually digging in and reporting on matters that should concern taxpayers.
That said, the report on the Justice Center missed a pretty critical issue: its design. IBJ columnist Bruce Race has been all over this, as has IndyCan, a local civic group concerned about the impact of the proposed design on criminal justice issues.
Design isn’t just about the way buildings look–although that’s important, too. It’s about the way they function, about what architects call “the program.” In your house, the program addresses things like storage, “flow,” and convenience based upon the way you live. In public buildings, the program needs to take all these things into account, plus the specific ways in which the public entity operates; it also needs to consider the impact of the building or buildings on the city and surrounding neighborhood(s). One reason an earlier proposal to locate the Justice Center at the old airport was so roundly criticized wasn’t just that it would have been incredibly inconvenient for the people most likely to use it, but that the location would have had a substantial, negative effect on occupancy of office buildings in the downtown core, and on the vitality of a downtown we’ve spent years and billions of dollars reinvigorating.
We need a Justice Center. But it needs to be thoughtfully designed to complement our long-term strategy for downtown, to integrate court and jail functions in the most seamless possible fashion, and to enhance the aesthetics of the surrounding area.
I’ve previously raised concerns about the financing mechanism, the secrecy of the process, and the nature of the incentives involved (the Administration says that placing responsibility for long-term maintenance on the developer will encourage the use of better materials, but it’s just as likely to encourage corner-cutting decisions made for the convenience of the developer rather than the public tenants). And what happens if–after obtaining payment for the construction phase– the developer defaults? (Toll Road, anyone?) What are our options?
My point is not that the deal is a bad one. My point is: we don’t know.
A deal this complex and expensive, intended to span this long a time-frame, needs to be done right. That means it needs to be thoroughly vetted by all stakeholders. I get suspicious when we’re given a short window within which to commit vast amounts of public money, and when the purported need for speed is based upon dark warnings that we need to move quickly in order to “lock in” benefits we aren’t even sure are there.
We can’t afford another parking meter giveaway.
Comments